Women Officially in Combat Roles

This is a discussion on Women Officially in Combat Roles within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So long as a candidate can cut the grade, mentally, physically, and with respect to operating effectively and capably as part of a team in ...

So long as a candidate can cut the grade, mentally, physically, and with respect to operating effectively and capably as part of a team in the full range of duties required in the role, a given single characteristic doesn't seem reasonable for disqualification. IMO, for far too long have assumptions been made about what gender means, whether it has any actual impact in a situation, etc. It either does or doesn't, performance-wise. If it doesn't, and if the candidate's otherwise qualified and "game" ...

Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large.Lighten up and enjoy life because:Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

Why on earth do folks always say there are two physical standards? First of all there are many (age groups). So I guess older folks should not have combat roles either. Second, the APFT is designed to gauge the fitness level of a soldier, it is not the requirement nor qualification for an MOS so the APFT is not job related (there are some exceptions like meeting the standard to go Special Forces and there is only one standard for that ...at least it was)). Third, to find out what the army says you need to do for a job you need to go to the correct reference which states the physical demands for that job. Here is part of it for an 18E (Special Forces Communicaions Sergeant)

Why on earth do folks always say there are two physical standards? First of all there are many (age groups). So I guess older folks should not have combat roles either. Second, the APFT is designed to gauge the fitness level of a soldier, it is not the requirement nor qualification for an MOS so the APFT is not job related (there are some exceptions like meeting the standard to go Special Forces and there is only one standard for that ...at least it was)). Third, to find out what the army says you need to do for a job you need to go to the correct reference which states the physical demands for that job. Here is part of it for an 18E (Special Forces Communicaions Sergeant)

You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt

There are obviously extremely capable female athletes that can do amazing things, and the mental toughness of women is in many ways superior to a man's. So there are a few women out there who can do this sort of thing. The problem is that women may be sought out to meet quota's, and thus detracting from efficiency. But hey, this happens in every other aspect of American culture, so why not add the military

Say you find a great female candidate and start putting her through these infantry or special forces school houses. She may be able to run faster than some guys, she may even be able to hump (or rather, hike) better than some guys...in the beginning. But after time, I think there would be literally a structural breakdown of some of these extremely fit and determined women. Starting at the hips and working down, things are going to start getting injured when exposed to 100 lbs or greater loads over days/weeks/months at a time. Female hips were designed to give birth, not hike up mountains. If you look at most female world class athletes of any sort, they have narrower hips than most women, but it's still structurally different than a man's hips.

It may not be the most pertinent argument, but it's just a thought. Stay classy, DC.

Women have 'superior mental toughness' to men? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I disagree.

I spent 24 years in the military and through out the years had many women under my command in peace time, but never in a combat environment. IMHO, based on my combat experience, the average female could not withstand the horrors of a ground engagement against an enemy force. Many men, better men than me, that I knew well crumbled during an engagement or from seeing the aftermath of the engagement and still suffer from the memories. I have served with some pretty tough women, but none that I believe could survive as grunt in a combat environment. There are many many critical support jobs that are more suitable for women then the combat arms.

How many remember WAC.

There are many reasons why woman should not be 11B's or 18's or other combat mos's in the army but all of the above is not them. Guess the horrors of an ER nurse/Doc, EMS, police, fireman, are not suited for women huh...
I see all these arguements of how women are not mentally tough....bull. Sounds like the men are not mentally tough if as some have said they would be distracted and try to protect the females or the horror of seeing a female blown to bits. Well, got news for ya. Many of the casualite in Iraq were from IED's and they took combat arms as frequently as non combat arms MOS's. So that cushy job of supply sergeant which could be held by a female could be blown to bits as easily as a male. Did it make a difference whe was suppluy and not infantry while you looked at the body and still had to continue the fight in case there was an ambush?
As far as distractions and unit cohesion...those were arguements for gays in the military and blacks. Guess society just had to grow up.

There are a host of reasons not to let them be in combat MOS's such as 11b and 18 series but mental toughness is not one of them.

Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large.Lighten up and enjoy life because:Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

Women Officially in Combat Roles

Originally Posted by Betty

I'm all for women in our armed forces, because we have as much reason to put our lives on the line for our families and country like the menfolk. The women, however, need to meet the current physical requirements. I am completely against watering down requirements for political correctness. If anyone can't do the miles and carry the load, then that person - man or woman - should not be accepted. Watering down the rules to allow weaker people in does no one a service. It will, however, make our military weaker. There's plenty of other honorable positions in the military where that person can be utilized.

And that's not even getting into what could happen to an American female soldier in enemy hands, especially an enemy that hates their own women so much they stone them to death for showing an ankle. *shiver*

The standards are already watered down and have been for years. Google army physical fitness standards for and see for yourself.

The standards are already watered down and have been for years. Google army physical fitness standards for and see for yourself.

It also has different standards for age (I am talking about the army PT test). The APFT is designed so the commander can gauge the fitness level of his soldiers, not dtermining what qualifies a person for a job in the army (with exceptions). See my previous post #64.

BTW: the minimum standards for a guy is a joke anyway. A lot of females can pass the male standard.

A 100 lb guy could max his PT test while a very fit 200 lb infantry man might just do average. Who do you think is best to carry a load? That is why the PT test is not meant, never was meant, to be used a tool to see how well someone can perform their job. BTW: Long time ago in the 80's and 90's I was a Master Fitness Trainer for the Army and was involved in the testing and evaluations when they changed the PT standards around 1994.

I'll weigh in on this. I was a shift chief in aircraft maintenance went the first women entered the maintenance fields. First we were told we'd have to clean up our acts and language. That didn't happen. We treated our first "lady" like one of the guys. She appreciated that. She said it was easier to be one of the guys than the only girl in the shop.

Some women worked out well, some didn't--just like the guys. What those "above" failed to realize was that, although the ladies were more than capable of understanding electronic circuitry, testing procedures, and maintenance procedures, no one thought to teach them what a #2 Phillips screwdriver or a six inch socket extension was. Every guy knows that--women didn't. But they learned. Some of my better maintenance troops were women, but it took time for them to reach that point in the field. They learned to get dirty just like the guys.

But for me, the thought of picking up pieces of a guy is near horror. Picking up pieces of a woman is unthinkable. But the only way to settle the dispute of whether women can handle frontline combat is to let them. They come to their own decision then.

Originally Posted by Cold Shot

Just a few things that haven't been brought up:

There are obviously extremely capable female athletes that can do amazing things, and the mental toughness of women is in many ways superior to a man's. So there are a few women out there who can do this sort of thing. The problem is that women may be sought out to meet quota's, and thus detracting from efficiency. But hey, this happens in every other aspect of American culture, so why not add the military

Say you find a great female candidate and start putting her through these infantry or special forces school houses. She may be able to run faster than some guys, she may even be able to hump (or rather, hike) better than some guys...in the beginning. But after time, I think there would be literally a structural breakdown of some of these extremely fit and determined women. Starting at the hips and working down, things are going to start getting injured when exposed to 100 lbs or greater loads over days/weeks/months at a time. Female hips were designed to give birth, not hike up mountains. If you look at most female world class athletes of any sort, they have narrower hips than most women, but it's still structurally different than a man's hips.

It may not be the most pertinent argument, but it's just a thought. Stay classy, DC.

One of things that have come to my mind on this topic I have never seen addressed. First let me say I agree with most of the comments. I too was in the combat arms (Redleg) and one thing that was prevelant (at least in the '80s) was that if a soldier failed out of the MOS signed up for they would get placed in an 11 or 13 series MOS Infantry and Filed Artillery respectively). In the spirit of "equality" will all women (now that that have been deemed qualified) be subject to this type of reassignment? Gender neutralitry could get tough.

The women, however, need to meet the current physical requirements. I am completely against watering down requirements for political correctness.

Yup. You never know how heavy the next soldier to be carried/lifted is going to be, how high you'll need to climb, how powerfully you'll need to respond, and for how long. The job is what it is. No choices to water it down when it's hitting happening in the field.